(29-10-2013 09:22 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote: This OP of this thread is a red herring. Apparently this theist hangs around people who up and murder people for no, or trivial reasons, on desert islands, and ...

"Apparently..."?
Is that what your brain really concludes must be the case? So much for that thinking atheist!

Actually it isn't, but the scenario proposed here, has as much relevance to real people and real situations as your red herring scenario does. Again you fail to address even ONE of the objections to ANY of your assumptions and premises, and if it isn't what possible reason would you have for proposing something so preposterous ?

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

(30-10-2013 07:47 AM)evenheathen Wrote: Look, we've seen this crap over and over. You need to present your argument that you, as a theist, have any better basis for morality than an atheist does. I don't wish to keep going around in circles with your stupid island scenario.

In other words, you cannot argue it....as if to say, lets see if we can find some dirt on the one exposing this about us!

My belief as a "theist" has nothing to do with the OP, nor dependent in any way upon it.

(30-10-2013 07:28 AM)Dearthair Wrote: "Apparently..."?
Is that what your brain really concludes must be the case? So much for that thinking atheist!

Actually it isn't, but the scenario proposed here, has as much relevance to real people and real situations as your red herring scenario does. Again you fail to address even ONE of the objections to ANY of your assumptions and premises, and if it isn't what possible reason would you have for proposing something so preposterous ?

The objections have been shallow nothings. Such as, Wrong, red-herring, shoo, semantics, stupid, etc.. Those aren't arguments. Either you can dissect what I present, or you cannot. You have to walk the walk.

(30-10-2013 08:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually it isn't, but the scenario proposed here, has as much relevance to real people and real situations as your red herring scenario does. Again you fail to address even ONE of the objections to ANY of your assumptions and premises, and if it isn't what possible reason would you have for proposing something so preposterous ?

The objections have been shallow nothings. Such as, Wrong, red-herring, shoo, semantics, stupid, etc.. Those aren't arguments. Either you can dissect what I present, or you cannot. You have to walk the walk.

Bullshit. If they are shallow answers you should be able to refute them, yet you haven't even tried. You have been presented with quite a few substantial arguments that you have blatantly ignored. This is troll behavior.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

(30-10-2013 08:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Actually it isn't, but the scenario proposed here, has as much relevance to real people and real situations as your red herring scenario does. Again you fail to address even ONE of the objections to ANY of your assumptions and premises, and if it isn't what possible reason would you have for proposing something so preposterous ?

The objections have been shallow nothings. Such as, Wrong, red-herring, shoo, semantics, stupid, etc.. Those aren't arguments. Either you can dissect what I present, or you cannot. You have to walk the walk.

No. You obviously haven't even read or looked at what I presented, and have attempted NOT ONE refutation of ONE point, or presented ONE reasoned argument.
There is no point in "dissecting" a preposterous irrelevant situation, as it has no actual bearing on real moral choices, nor can it, in any way enlighten a discussion of this matter, nor have you established HOW exactly it is relevant. No one here lives on a desert island, and most of us do not CHOOSE psychotic friends. Every preposterous irrelevant situation, does not require addressing. You said, (disingenuously), "The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already)", when in fact we all know there is no one "theist" position, on any moral question, and in fact this infantile question is answered by Social Science, (which you obviously have no background in). There is no reason to "dissect" an irrelevant pile of crap. If you had any intellectual honestly, you would have stated your position, demonstrated EXACTLY HOW IT IS RELEVANT, and asked for ideas. You came here to preach your bullshit, and self-righteous church lady superiority. You failed.

Insufferable know-it-all. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.

You have refused to present anything. All you've done is dance around declaring that no one can argue with you. Well ya know, yeah, no one can. Just like no one can argue with a fucking parrot or a small unintelligent child.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

(30-10-2013 09:18 AM)Dearthair Wrote: The objections have been shallow nothings. Such as, Wrong, red-herring, shoo, semantics, stupid, etc.. Those aren't arguments. Either you can dissect what I present, or you cannot. You have to walk the walk.

Bullshit. If they are shallow answers you should be able to refute them, yet you haven't even tried. You have been presented with quite a few substantial arguments that you have blatantly ignored. This is troll behavior.

Please quote the portion of a message you find is particularly significant, and I will look at it.

(30-10-2013 09:18 AM)Dearthair Wrote: The objections have been shallow nothings. Such as, Wrong, red-herring, shoo, semantics, stupid, etc.. Those aren't arguments. Either you can dissect what I present, or you cannot. You have to walk the walk.

No. You obviously haven't even read or looked at what I presented, and have attempted NOT ONE refutation of ONE point, or presented ONE reasoned argument.
There is no point in "dissecting" a preposterous irrelevant situation, as it has no actual bearing on real moral choices, nor can it, in any way enlighten a discussion of this matter, nor have you established HOW exactly it is relevant. No one here lives on a desert island, and most of us do not CHOOSE psychotic friends. Every preposterous irrelevant situation, does not require addressing. You said, (disingenuously), "The question presented on an atheist forum by a theist is obviously directed only to atheists (everyone knows the answer of a theist already)", when in fact we all know there is no one "theist" position, on any moral question, and in fact this infantile question is answered by Social Science, (which you obviously have no background in). There is no reason to "dissect" an irrelevant pile of crap. If you had any intellectual honestly, you would have stated your position, demonstrated EXACTLY HOW IT IS RELEVANT, and asked for ideas. You came here to preach your bullshit, and self-righteous church lady superiority. You failed.

(29-10-2013 02:06 PM)Dearthair Wrote: However, it appears to serve. If you have 20 people, and all "agree" that if any one henceforth murders, the violator will be killed for doing it. Fine enough, but what atheist moral says agreements must be kept? None. So, if the "thinking for oneself" truly trumps all, then you would be putting to death an atheist for doing what he was supposed to do as an atheist - thinking for himself! Then the others become "oppressive".

Guy. You can't just pull that from your ass and call it 'truth'.

Human beings are social beings. This means we tend to place some value in upholding social agreements.

Your argument is based on asserted (and wildly flawed) premises and carried out by shambling straw men. It is not compelling. This is a problem. You don't seem to realize the problem. That is another problem.

(29-10-2013 02:06 PM)Dearthair Wrote: What if only 17 of the 20 decided that agreement in the first place? Do you then oppress the other 3 against their wills to "think for themselves"? And after that, when the 17 have children, do you oppress them with your own agreement even though their "thinking for themselves" had no part in the original agreement?

Some level of cooperation and enforcement are necessary in order for a group of individuals to function as a society.

Your argument ('argument' lol) is thus:
Premises: Atheists have no morals besides an individualism so fervent it would make an Objectivist blush.
Conclusion: Atheists have no reason to agree to or abide by social contracts.

NOPE. I mean, the premise is nonsensical, but the conclusion doesn't even follow. A degree of mutual interaction is demonstrably beneficial regardless.

Are you even trying?

(30-10-2013 07:40 AM)Dearthair Wrote: If you are in a land with no government, and you see a stranger kill another stranger merely because he didn't like the way he combed his hair, do you have any basis for thinking, objectively, that "he SHOULD NOT have done that"? Or, that "he acted badly"? Or, "That his self-determination to do it was wrong"?

Look, you're not even being coherent.

If it is what I think then it is not objective.

Human beings in general tend to have some broad agreement. This does not constitute objectivity, but it's the basis for any fair and rational legal system which does exist.

...

In conclusion, you have an incoherent thesis backed by transparently flawed arguments.

Are you going somewhere with this? Because please, please, go there faster.

(29-10-2013 12:49 PM)Dearthair Wrote: Where you get it all wrong is that I am talking about each and every individual atheist has no basis for his/her morality.

Repeated attempts to turn this debate into a "so are you" and a "you're chicken if you don't answer" is what is plainly silly.

If a fellow atheist on a desert island deliberately kills your best friend because the fellow didn't like how your friend noisily slurped his coconut juice, the atheist "belief" can only say, "I personally didn't like that act, but what he did was acceptable because he decided that on his own."

Your problem seems to be that you cannot conceive of a way for a subjective morality to a), exist, b), have any validity, or c), form a basis for group interaction.

What you can and cannot conceive of is not particularly going to inform the actions of others.

Morality is subject to individual variation, sure, but it exists in well-defined ways for well-understood purposes in most humans exactly as one would expect for any other trait.